IMO evacuating the PLO to Tunis intact was a terrible idea. They should have been destroyed. As you know Arafat survived to cause all sorts of problems in the region, as did the 20% or so of his terrorists left behind to form the core of todays terror problem in Lebanon. The buffer zone in the south, a decent compromise, clearly Israel's withdrawl was a mistake in retrospect.
The point isn't agreement/disagreement with RR's Lebanon policy, rather the absurd comparison to Ron Paul. Ron Paul wouldn't have had a hand in negotiating a withdrawl agreement, "saving face" in your terms, he wouldn't have had a hand in relocating the PLO, vetting terrorists who stay, or in handing over the South to Israel, which he clearly would consider a provocation of the terrorists. He simply would have left cold, as he would do in Iraq, with no consideration of the consequences.
It's worth noting he's opposed to virtually all RR's other foreign policy actions, from Grenada to Central America to Afghanistan to the maintainance of troops in Europe. The Ron Paul=Ronald Reagan comparison is absurd.
As to your rather stupid question, no I don't consider Ronald Reagan a traitor, I don't consider Paul one either. If you're interested in the traitor card, read.